Overview
Title
To require the head of an agency to issue and sign any rule issued by that agency, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill says that if a government agency makes a new rule, a big boss, chosen by the President and approved by the Senate, must sign it to make sure everyone knows who is responsible. If there’s a danger to safety or security, they can skip this step, but they have to explain why, and someone else will check to make sure the rules are followed.
Summary AI
H.R. 418, known as the "Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act," requires that any rules created by a U.S. government agency must be issued and signed by a person appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There are exceptions if adhering to this requirement would threaten public safety or security, in which case the agency head must notify and explain the reasons for the exemption. The bill also ensures oversight by mandating the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to monitor agency compliance. This legislation aims to increase accountability and transparency in how federal rules are made.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 418, titled the "Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act," introduces a requirement for federal agencies' rulemaking processes. The bill mandates that any new rule issued by a federal agency must be signed and issued by a high-ranking official who the President appointed and confirmed by the Senate. This aims to enhance accountability and ensure that senior officials are directly responsible for the regulations that agencies enact. There are exceptions to this rule, primarily when issues of public safety or security are concerned. Oversight is to be provided by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ensuring compliance with these new requirements.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the key issues with the bill is its definition of a "senior appointee," which could lead to inconsistencies due to its reliance on varying positions and terms across different agencies. This might result in confusion regarding who precisely should be responsible for issuing new rules. Additionally, the bill allows agency heads to bypass standard procedures if they determine that adhering to them could impede public safety or security. This provision is open to subjective interpretation, potentially leading to misuse or inconsistent application.
Another significant concern lies in the lack of detailed oversight mechanisms. The broad descriptions of roles and responsibilities don't outline specific consequences for non-compliance, which could undermine the bill's intent to enhance transparency and accountability. Finally, the bill references preserving certain functions of the Office of Management and Budget without specifying which functions are meant to be preserved, adding to potential ambiguities.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The bill introduces a structured method to ensure high-level accountability in federal rulemaking, which can enhance transparency in federal agencies' operations. This accountability might ensure that new rules are implemented with more scrutiny, potentially resulting in more thoughtful and effective regulations that better serve the public interest. However, without clear accountability and oversight mechanisms, there's a risk that the process might not fully achieve its objectives, potentially diminishing public trust.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For federal agencies, the increased requirement for senior officials to approve new rules means added responsibility and possibly more thorough documentation and justification of regulations. This might slow down the rulemaking process and increase administrative burdens. Senior officials might face increased scrutiny and pressure as they are held accountable for the rules they implement.
For the general public, this bill could mean stricter oversight on regulations affecting their lives, resulting in higher quality and more considered rulemaking. On the other hand, the potential for misuse of exceptions related to public safety and security might diminish the consistency of these regulations, potentially impacting public confidence in governmental processes.
Overall, while the bill aims to increase accountability in agency rulemaking, the effectiveness of its implementation will depend heavily on how its provisions are interpreted and enforced.
Issues
The definition of 'senior appointee' in Section 2(a)(2) could be unclear and lead to misunderstandings due to its reliance on multiple positions and terms. This could result in inconsistent application across different agencies.
The exception mechanism in Section 2(a)(3) that allows the head of an agency to bypass the rule requirement on the grounds of public safety or security is subjective. Without clear guidelines, this could lead to inconsistent application and potential misuse if not properly monitored.
The lack of specific oversight mechanisms in Section 2(b) raises concerns about transparency and accountability. The broad descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of agency heads and the Administrator might result in unclear accountability, as there is insufficient detail about enforcement or consequences for non-compliance.
The language in Section 2(c), regarding the preservation of functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, lacks specificity. The phrase 'may not be construed to impair or otherwise affect' could be vague and could lead to different interpretations about what functions are intended to be preserved.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act provides its short title, allowing it to be referred to as the “Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act.”
2. Rulemaking requirements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section describes the process for creating new rules by federal agencies, requiring that any new rule must be issued by a high-ranking appointee confirmed by the Senate, unless there's an urgent need related to safety or security. It also requires agency heads to ensure compliance and provides for oversight by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Definitions of key terms used in the section, like "Administrator" and "senior appointee," are included.